Scheduled Ancient Monument: GREAT BRICETT MOATED SITE (SF56)

A medieval moated site, comprising a ditch around a circular platform, and an associated polygonal enclosure to the east and south-east that is now infilled and ploughed, but which survives as buried evidence and remains apparent as cropmarks in aerial photography. ot the site was a forcelet, it is very likely to have been the manorial seat given its size and the high-status nature of moated sites of the medieval period. The lordship eventually passed to the priory in the 1330s, by which time the moated site is likely to have fallen out of use. Possession of the manor passed to the Crown on the suppression of the priory in 1444. The site was first depicted on an Ordnance Survey (OS) draft sketch map of 1820, though this did not show the eastern enclosure. The 1837 First Series OS (1”) shows both the extant moat and the associated second enclosure now surviving as cropmarks. The map labelled the site as Nunnery Hill but with another label saying ‘Hall or Priory’ to the immediate north. What appears to be a farmyard is tight to the south-east and a track runs along the southern side of the monument and continues west. The most detailed available representation of the full monument is that of the 1904 OS (25”). The site was added to the Schedule in 1950, originally as a feature of the priory but later amended to reflect its secular reinterpretation. While the principal moated enclosure survives as an earthwork with a wet ditch, the connected enclosure to the south-east has been ploughed flat and is no longer visible at ground level. However, aerial photography in 2010 confirms the persistence of the second moat as archaeology revealed through cropmarks. Geophysical survey in 2016 confirmed that the pentagonal enclosure south-east of the moated platform remained clear, and noted the presence of ferrous debris in the fill of the ditches. Within the moated platform there was a very large ferrous response to the south, possibly relating to the demolition of an L-shaped structure that is known to have stood here in 1945. PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS: A medieval moated site, comprising a ditch around a circular platform, and an associated polygonal enclosure to the east to south-east that is now infilled and ploughed-out, but which survives as buried evidence and remains apparent as cropmarks in aerial photography. DESCRIPTION: Situated in elevated rolling countryside, the moat itself is low-lying, and not a prominent feature in the landscape. The site lies at about 81m AOD, on land falling gently to the south, into the upper reaches of a shallow valley containing a small stream, less than 100m to the south. The stream runs east and south-east and is a tributary of the River Gipping. The surrounding area is slightly undulating at around 85m AOD. The bedrock geology of the area is characterised by Red Crag Formation – Sand and superficial geology of Lowestoft Formation – Diamicton. The surviving sub-circular enclosure measures approximately 80m north to south by 70m east to west. The ditch is seasonally waterfilled and typically about 14m wide; the central island is about 50m north to south by 43m east to west. As the natural topography falls gently from north to south the ditch is wider and deeper (above 3m) to the north and narrower and shallower (0.6m) to the south. The southern ‘point’ of the moat noted above may be related to the current and perhaps original moat outlet. The island is level, apparently achieved by throwing some of the material from the moat up onto the island, the depth of this gradually increasing from north to south. At the north the island does not stand above the surrounding level, but this increases gradually to the south where it sits about 2m above the natural. If this levelling was original, it is unlikely that the moat could have been constructed around existing buildings. There is no surviving internal bank; an external bank survives around much of the north-western quarter of the ditch, reducing in height from south to north, and traces of a ploughed-out bank were noted to the north-east, but overall this is a relatively small feature and perhaps related to a secondary field boundary rather than the original monument (on the west side it is too well defined to be the result of moat clearance). Geophysical survey suggests a former structure on the island orientated north-west to south-east; other evidence appears to be masked by later deposits (Rainer 2017). The moat island is accessed by a causeway, probably not original. This lay immediately outside the infilled eastern polygonal enclosure. It seems likely that the western enclosure might originally have been accessed by a bridge from the eastern enclosure as this would have connected the two and been easier to construct where the ground levels were closer to equal. The polygonal enclosure, originally to the east to south-east, is no longer visible as a surface feature, though evidence for it can be seen where its enclosing ditches met the surviving circular moat ditch. It must survive as a buried feature, as it is visible as a cropmark in recent photographs and surface traces survive as very faint gullies. Geophysical survey suggests the ditches were deliberately backfilled with material including ferrous scrap (Rainer 2017). This appears to have occurred in stages with the northern and eastern ditches infilled by 1954, and the southern surviving until at least 1965 (shown in aerial photographs). The area has also been levelled by ploughing. Its form can be seen in early OS maps which show a rough, polygonal shape measuring up to 60m east to west by 58m north to south internally. To the west, it is shown abutting the circular moat and appears to be secondary to it. The northern boundary was narrow and ran almost due east to west with a central causewayed entrance. West of the causeway it is shown to be in a cutting that broadened out where it connected with the circular enclosure ditch; traces of this junction survive. It is depicted with a line along the base suggesting a drain rather than being waterfilled, which in turn suggests the causeway was acting as a dam. To the east it appears to have been waterfilled and perhaps 2m wide. The eastern arm ran slightly to the east of south and also appears to have been waterfilled and 2m wide, and separated from the northern arm, probably by an internal weir or sluice. It is shown with a blunt south end and the south-east arm runs off from the south-west corner. The latter arm was initially quite narrow (<1m) but broadened steadily as it ran in a very slight curve to the south-west. At the south corner of the enclosure it is appears to be about 8.5m across but narrows abruptly where the south-west arm runs off to the north-west. This was slightly sinuous, waterfilled and appears almost natural. A field boundary runs away south from the south corner and was perhaps the system’s outlet. Medieval (C13-C14) pottery and tile finds have been recorded from this area suggesting the survival of significant deposits within the enclosure, though geophysics did not identify any features.